Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

simply put if you want to do it the best way use two screens with a
browser refreshing in one and the editor in the other.

I've never found a wysiwyg editor worth a dam for html, especially going
across half a dozen target browsers.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

NVU is free and cross-platform, but no longer in development:-

http://net2.com/nvu/download.html

There's no support, though, apart from via other users.

Now replaced by Blue Griffon:-

http://bluegriffon.org/pages/Download

You can use it in WYSIWYG mode or text mode, and it will let you preview
the results as they would appear in most of the common browsers from
within the program.

I use Namo version 3, now up to version 9, which is $79.99 to download:-

http://www.namo.com/main/?skin=produ...ebeditor9.html

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

Install and use a Wiki for most of it? It means you can use a simple
markup language to write the pages and it's *designed* for maintaining
on-line. (I'm using DokuWiki but there are lots of alternatives, for
a sample of what a very basic one can do see http://zbmc.eu/public/wiki/)

.... or install WordPress, that's what a huge number of people
maintaining their own web sites do nowadays.

--
Chris Green

On 12/08/2012 15:09 newshound wrote:

Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

I've used html-kit for a long time now: http://www.htmlkit.com/

It's free (and there's a later paid-for 'html-kit tools') version that
I've switched to).

--
F

newshound wrote:

Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.

The problem with editing web pages that way is WYSWBDTWIS (what you see
will be be different to what I see) due to varying browsers, versions of
browsers, screen sizes, font settings, addons/plugins, etc.

Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

I use Komodo Edit, it "understands" and syntax highlights html/css plus
many other file types, you can have a preview tab open which shows you
roughly how it'll look in most mozilla based browsers (saving files
automatically refreshes preview), but it can spawn to any other external
browser you've got to check for sure, it has a built in FTP client too
for uploading to servers.

http://www.activestate.com/komodo-edit

Oh, it's free, the niggle for me is that it's a bit slow loading.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 16:00:49 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

The problem with editing web pages that way is WYSWBDTWIS (what you see
will be be different to what I see) due to varying browsers, versions
of browsers, screen sizes, font settings, addons/plugins, etc.

Which is where http://browsershots.org/ comes in handy.

I used to use the WYSIWYG editor built into Mozilla that produced
resonably compatible and compact code. 'Tis a long time ago now though I
think it's now SeaMonkey. http://www.seamonkey-project.org/

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Aug 12, 3:09*pm, newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver.

Just run away now.

Never get involved in web projects (unless it's day job turf and the
hourly rate is good).

Never get involved in club web projects.

Don't touch Dreamweaver with a bargepole.

You can't "define CSS". You can't do this before the structure of the
site is defined, and you can't do it with CSS alone. It can be done,
it's a good way to work, but it needs a wireframe of the rough site
first (maybe even crude HTML), then CSS and also copious notes about
how the selector structure is going to work. Then it needs two
developers to whom "wireframe" and "selector structure" are just
second nature. This is rare.

Your editing tool is a very minor choice. You just need a good coder's
text editor. You DO NOT WANT an editor that tries to take over the
role of understanding HTML & CSS for you. Dreamweaver is neither an
aid to the beginner, nor a means of developing a commercial site. This
is because of the nature of such tools in general, not Dreamweaver
particularly. I use Eclipse or jEdit, but Namo or NVU would no doubt
work too.

IMHO, go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages. Then (i.e. afterwards, and not
before) other developers can work on adding the additional pages,
based on this example. This also proves out the CSS in combination
with the HTML, because you can never do all of it successfully and
completely pro forma.

As to wikis, then they're a great way for an editor community to
develop content-focussed sites collaboratively. However it's also hard
to turn a wiki into a usable site for average walk-up readers, who
aren't familiar with wikis. Much as I love wikis, this is a tricky
problem to solve.

"newshound" wrote in message
eb.com...
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else is
contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very little
web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in editing
the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view. Currently using
Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it is a bit clunky.
Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind paying for a basic
editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware / low cost editor
suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive stuff.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

harryagain wrote:

"newshound" wrote:

I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup languages.
I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to have a
WISYWIG view.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

But if you do, make sure you *NEVER* view the html files, it'll make you
eyes bleed.

On 12/08/2012 17:44, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

"newshound" wrote:

I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup languages.
I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to have a
WISYWIG view.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

But if you do, make sure you *NEVER* view the html files, it'll make you
eyes bleed.

I couldn't have put it better: the Dreamweaver stuff is dire too.

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Aug 12, 3:09 pm, newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver.

Just run away now.

Never get involved in web projects (unless it's day job turf and the
hourly rate is good).

Never get involved in club web projects.

I know, but not an option. You should have seen it *before* I got involved


Don't touch Dreamweaver with a bargepole.

You can't "define CSS". You can't do this before the structure of the
site is defined, and you can't do it with CSS alone. It can be done,
it's a good way to work, but it needs a wireframe of the rough site
first (maybe even crude HTML), then CSS and also copious notes about
how the selector structure is going to work. Then it needs two
developers to whom "wireframe" and "selector structure" are just
second nature. This is rare.

Your editing tool is a very minor choice. You just need a good coder's
text editor. You DO NOT WANT an editor that tries to take over the
role of understanding HTML & CSS for you. Dreamweaver is neither an
aid to the beginner, nor a means of developing a commercial site. This
is because of the nature of such tools in general, not Dreamweaver
particularly. I use Eclipse or jEdit, but Namo or NVU would no doubt
work too.

Agree totally (but it is nice to have something which marks tags, shows
comments, is friendly for formatting and printing). I think I have a
copy of NVU somewhere, but it's a *long* time since I was writing code,
so I am out of touch with what's available. I started on teletypes.


IMHO, go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages. Then (i.e. afterwards, and not
before) other developers can work on adding the additional pages,
based on this example. This also proves out the CSS in combination
with the HTML, because you can never do all of it successfully and
completely pro forma.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

As to wikis, then they're a great way for an editor community to
develop content-focussed sites collaboratively. However it's also hard
to turn a wiki into a usable site for average walk-up readers, who
aren't familiar with wikis. Much as I love wikis, this is a tricky
problem to solve.


It's not really a wiki sort of problem, it's a bit of a showcase, a bit
of a knowledge base, and a bit of social networking.

But, comments very much appreciated.

newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

On 12/08/2012 15:41, F wrote:
On 12/08/2012 15:09 newshound wrote:

Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

I've used html-kit for a long time now: http://www.htmlkit.com/

It's free (and there's a later paid-for 'html-kit tools') version that
I've switched to).


Yes, that looks pretty slick and full-featured. I'll give this a try.
Thanks to all for the suggestions.

On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. One of the club members came up
with a basic page layout, colour schemes, graphics for the banner, etc.
The "web designer" tweaked a template from something they found on the
web and produced some CSS and "unpopulated" HTML. I simplified the CSS a
bit and put in the framework text, designed and built the menus, sorted
out a directory structure and linked it all together. Now I'm trying to
keep it up to date. The originator wants to generate pages with a lot
more pictures so we are re-vamping the structure. It's not going to be a
very big or complicated site, it's a volunteer organisation which runs
on a shoestring. I'm trying to make it 1) slick and 2) maintainable: not
easy when some of the input that I have to work with comes from WYSIWIG
editors which throw formatting tags around like confetti, and no-one
apart from me thinks about file naming conventions and appropriate
character sets.

newshound :
On 12/08/2012 17:44, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

"newshound" wrote:

I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup languages.
I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to have a
WISYWIG view.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

But if you do, make sure you *NEVER* view the html files, it'll make you
eyes bleed.

I couldn't have put it better: the Dreamweaver stuff is dire too.

It doesn't have to be. I use Dreamweaver for its template and library
features, which work well enough. Also it does a good job of adjusting
links if I move or rename anything. The source looks hand-written
(because it is hand-written, apart from the template and library
references).

On the other hand some of the content was edited by someone else using
Macromedia Contribute, which seems to be incapable of writing sensible
code.

--
Mike Barnes

newshound wrote:
On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. One of the club members came up
with a basic page layout, colour schemes, graphics for the banner, etc.
The "web designer" tweaked a template from something they found on the
web and produced some CSS and "unpopulated" HTML. I simplified the CSS a
bit and put in the framework text, designed and built the menus, sorted
out a directory structure and linked it all together. Now I'm trying to
keep it up to date. The originator wants to generate pages with a lot
more pictures so we are re-vamping the structure. It's not going to be a
very big or complicated site, it's a volunteer organisation which runs
on a shoestring. I'm trying to make it 1) slick and 2) maintainable: not
easy when some of the input that I have to work with comes from WYSIWIG
editors which throw formatting tags around like confetti, and no-one
apart from me thinks about file naming conventions and appropriate
character sets.

My solution was to write some PHP that draws the framework, and a web
based editor that takes simple textn a few commands and inserts a
picture or two.

Adding an 'article' which is automatically indexed consist in filling in
a form and attaching images.





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 12/08/2012 21:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


My solution was to write some PHP that draws the framework, and a web
based editor that takes simple textn a few commands and inserts a
picture or two.

Adding an 'article' which is automatically indexed consist in filling in
a form and attaching images.

Looks interesting, but I had pretty much stopped coding before VB came
out. There are just too many programming languages out there to start
learning another one. Mind you I did start with Elliot Autocode.

Maybe I am out of RAM. A mate of mine has just gone bionic with a
Parkinson's disruptor. I'm just waiting for when I can get an SDHC card
slot fitted.

On Aug 12, 9:15*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
newshound wrote:
On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. One of the club members came up
with a basic page layout, colour schemes, graphics for the banner, etc.
The "web designer" tweaked a template from something they found on the
web and produced some CSS and "unpopulated" HTML. I simplified the CSS a
bit and put in the framework text, designed and built the menus, sorted
out a directory structure and linked it all together. Now I'm trying to
keep it up to date. The originator wants to generate pages with a lot
more pictures so we are re-vamping the structure. It's not going to be a
very big or complicated site, it's a volunteer organisation which runs
on a shoestring. I'm trying to make it 1) slick and 2) maintainable: not
easy when some of the input that I have to work with comes from WYSIWIG
editors which throw formatting tags around like confetti, and no-one
apart from me thinks about file naming conventions and appropriate
character sets.

My solution was to write some PHP that draws the framework, and a web
based editor that takes simple textn a few commands *and inserts a
picture or two.

Adding an 'article' which is automatically indexed consist in filling in
a form and attaching images.


Isn`t that the basis of all the Content Mnangement Systems around now?

Joomla becoming more familiar with there`s also , Mambo , Dot Net
Nuke , Wordpress etc

Takes the grief out of updating indexes and allows site wide templates
to change the style.

Cheers
Adam





--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 12/08/2012 15:09, newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small club
web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and someone else
is contributing some graphics pages built with Dreamweaver. I do very
little web work but am comfortable with markup languages. I believe in
editing the code directly but it is handy to have a WISYWIG view.
Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive
stuff.

Basic wysiwig editor, easy to use:

http://kompozer.net/


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

You can do a certain amount in advance - creating the general basics
like font selections, colour schemes etc. Much depends on how "designed"
you want the site to look.

Something fairly basic but easy on the eye has a lot to be said for it
over the rigid overly prescriptive designed sites so beloved of
designers with a page layout and design background.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 12/08/2012 21:15, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
newshound wrote:
On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

Sorry, I didn't explain it very well. One of the club members came up
with a basic page layout, colour schemes, graphics for the banner,
etc. The "web designer" tweaked a template from something they found
on the web and produced some CSS and "unpopulated" HTML. I simplified
the CSS a bit and put in the framework text, designed and built the
menus, sorted out a directory structure and linked it all together.
Now I'm trying to keep it up to date. The originator wants to generate
pages with a lot more pictures so we are re-vamping the structure.
It's not going to be a very big or complicated site, it's a volunteer
organisation which runs on a shoestring. I'm trying to make it 1)
slick and 2) maintainable: not easy when some of the input that I have
to work with comes from WYSIWIG editors which throw formatting tags
around like confetti, and no-one apart from me thinks about file
naming conventions and appropriate character sets.

My solution was to write some PHP that draws the framework, and a web
based editor that takes simple textn a few commands and inserts a
picture or two.

Adding an 'article' which is automatically indexed consist in filling in
a form and attaching images.

Yup that's a good approach for this sort of thing. There are a number of
off the shelf content management systems out there that can also do a
fair amount of the work for you in cases like this.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

You can do a certain amount in advance - creating the general basics like
font selections, colour schemes etc. Much depends on how "designed" you
want the site to look.

Something fairly basic but easy on the eye has a lot to be said for it
over the rigid overly prescriptive designed sites so beloved of designers
with a page layout and design background.

Something basic? See wodney.

On 12/08/2012 19:16, newshound wrote:
On 12/08/2012 17:44, Andy Burns wrote:
harryagain wrote:

"newshound" wrote:

I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup languages.
I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to have a
WISYWIG view.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

But if you do, make sure you *NEVER* view the html files, it'll make you
eyes bleed.

Indeed. Front page is not much better, and it can't help fiddling when
you try to round trip code written elsewhere through it.

I couldn't have put it better: the Dreamweaver stuff is dire too.

Not so convinced about that... I find I can get reasonable results out
of that without it also stomping all over my JSP and other code.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 13/08/2012 00:44, brass monkey wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 12/08/2012 19:37, Andy Burns wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 12/08/2012 16:58, Andy Dingley wrote:

go back to the CSS expert and have them also develop the site
wireframe and some example HTML pages.

Not an option. This is a reasonably competent designer with no interest
in the organisation, just doing it as a favour for a friend.

I don't see how this expert *could* meaningfully develop CSS files in
isolation from HTML files, how is the person creating the HTML files
supposed to know how and where to use various id and class names?

You can do a certain amount in advance - creating the general basics like
font selections, colour schemes etc. Much depends on how "designed" you
want the site to look.

Something fairly basic but easy on the eye has a lot to be said for it
over the rigid overly prescriptive designed sites so beloved of designers
with a page layout and design background.

Something basic? See wodney.

I said basic, not pointless!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Aug 12, 5:44*pm, Andy Burns wrote:

harryagain wrote:
"newshound" wrote:

I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup languages.
I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to have a
WISYWIG view.

You can dio stuff in "MS Word" and then hit "save as a webpage"

But if you do, make sure you *NEVER* view the html files, it'll make you
eyes bleed.

True, there is a lot of unneccessary crap.

On 12/08/2012 15:25, John Williamson wrote:
newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small
club web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and
someone else is contributing some graphics pages built with
Dreamweaver. I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup
languages. I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to
have a WISYWIG view. Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened
to have a copy, but it is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like
Dreamweaver but don't mind paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend
any freeware / shareware / low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No
Java, Flash, or any interactive stuff.

NVU is free and cross-platform, but no longer in development:-

http://net2.com/nvu/download.html

There's no support, though, apart from via other users.

Now replaced by Blue Griffon:-

http://bluegriffon.org/pages/Download

You can use it in WYSIWYG mode or text mode, and it will let you preview
the results as they would appear in most of the common browsers from
within the program.

I'll put another vote in for Blue Griffon as worthy of consideration and
also free. You can run it almost WYSIWIG mode too with tags shown in
much the same way as Hotmetal used to do before Corel discontinued it.

I use Namo version 3, now up to version 9, which is $79.99 to download:-

http://www.namo.com/main/?skin=produ...ebeditor9.html

What advantages does that product offer over BG?

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Aug 12, 8:23*pm, newshound wrote:
The "web designer" tweaked a template from something they found on the
web and produced some CSS and "unpopulated" HTML.

An old essay of mine on this topic:
http://quercus.livejournal.com/157332.html

appropriate character sets.

Easy. Unicode stored and served as UTF-8 (no BOM) throughout. Easy,
does the job, works internationally.

As a tip, embed a copyright character somewhere on the page (blurb
footers are good). Do this as a literal copyright character (typed in
under Windows as Alt 0169) rather than a character entity. Now see if
it's displayed correctly, and if the served page is delivered as
UTF-8. If it is, then you're good, and you're probably good for
embedded Norwegian and Urdu too.

Note that "Save as Unicode" in many Windows tools is actually "Save as
UTF-16" - you need "Save as UTF-8 (No BOM)"

Host on Apache. Learn enough Apache config to understand serving as
UTF-8, SSI and redirects. Don't host on Zeus.

Avoid PHP. You probably don't need this, and if you do need it, you
should be using someone else's pre-written Wordpress, not writing your
own PHP.


I have to work with comes from WYSIWIG
editors which throw formatting tags around like confetti,

Embedded WYSIWYG is much less trouble than WYSIWYG page design. The
only formatting you need to preserve for most tasks is inline
formatting and para / header breaks. These are usually generated
reasonably well by WYSIWYG and aren't hard to sanitise and embed. The
tricky stuff is when WYSIWYG is trying to embed 2D page layout. That's
not only likely broken, but you probably don't need it for your site,
as you're writing your own container anyway.

If you go down the CMS route, then there's sadly little available as a
FOSS CMS. Your best options are more likely to be a wiki (over-
complex, but it'll do the job) - which best means MediaWiki, or else
one of the more sophisticated blog engines like Wordpress. Not quite
so good a CMS as something really intended as a CMS, but it will do
the job.

Here's an example of MediaWiki used as a CMS, then stretched to try
and make it publically navigable, without looking too much like a
wiki.
http://wyewaltz.org/wiki/Main_Page
This one is also run as a single CMS on the "management" site, then
published automatically to two other wikis, one for public and one for
artistes.



I would suggest that you learn HTML and get on with it, using a
coder's text editor.

HTML is easy. It's complicated by two factors: people telling you it's
hard and the awful tutorial information out there - almost all of
which is wrong.

Use HTML 4.01 Strict, not 3.2, not XHTML, not HTML 4 Transitional, not
HTML 5.

Read the two "Head First" books, "Head First Web Design" and "Head
First HTML with CSS & XHTML" Borrow these from the library, as
they're both an excellent one-off tutorial read, but not ongoing
references. Maybe get a copy of Lie & Bos' CSS book as a desk
reference.

You now know HTML. You now know enough HTML to handle semantic markup
for new embedded content, and enough HTML to do maintenance on an
existing site design. You don't know enough to design a site or to
design layout. You don't know any useful CSS either.

Read brainjar.com to learn how CSS positioning works. Particularly the
half-dozen ways to do side-by side content, tables (not always using
table) and how to do sidebars, columns or menus.

Lift your site design from bluerobot.com or glish.com who have some
useful two- or three-column designs, with menus.

Glue the bits together, then have your CSS expert skin the site for
its look and feel.

Use SSI to hold the complicated, fragile parts separate from the
community-edited content chunks.

If editors change things, that's enough. If editors _create_ things,
then you need more. Use either a blog engine or a wiki.

newshound wrote:
It's not really a wiki sort of problem, it's a bit of a showcase, a bit
of a knowledge base, and a bit of social networking.

That's quite a bit like what I use my 'home' wiki for. It's just an
easy way to store my personal knowledge base on web pages that look
reasonably pretty without much effort. It also means (using the wiki
I use) that I can set permissions to allow different family members to
have their own areas to play in and allow the outside world to see
only specific bits.

It's also a blog, I use a plugin for the wiki to provide this, so
that's the social networking covered to an extent.

.... not sure about being a showcase. :-)

--
Chris Green

Martin Brown wrote:
On 12/08/2012 15:25, John Williamson wrote:
newshound wrote:
Maybe stretching the definition of DIY, but I'm maintaining a small
club web site where one person (expert) has defined the CSS and
someone else is contributing some graphics pages built with
Dreamweaver. I do very little web work but am comfortable with markup
languages. I believe in editing the code directly but it is handy to
have a WISYWIG view. Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened
to have a copy, but it is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like
Dreamweaver but don't mind paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend
any freeware / shareware / low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No
Java, Flash, or any interactive stuff.

NVU is free and cross-platform, but no longer in development:-

http://net2.com/nvu/download.html

There's no support, though, apart from via other users.

Now replaced by Blue Griffon:-

http://bluegriffon.org/pages/Download

You can use it in WYSIWYG mode or text mode, and it will let you preview
the results as they would appear in most of the common browsers from
within the program.

I'll put another vote in for Blue Griffon as worthy of consideration and
also free. You can run it almost WYSIWIG mode too with tags shown in
much the same way as Hotmetal used to do before Corel discontinued it.

I use Namo version 3, now up to version 9, which is $79.99 to download:-

http://www.namo.com/main/?skin=produ...ebeditor9.html

What advantages does that product offer over BG?

I've no idea, but at this precise moment, Namo 3 has the advantage for
me because I'm used to it. This may change with the next rewrite of my
home page.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 13/08/2012 11:03, Andy Dingley wrote:


Here's an example of MediaWiki used as a CMS, then stretched to try
and make it publically navigable, without looking too much like a
wiki.
http://wyewaltz.org/wiki/Main_Page
This one is also run as a single CMS on the "management" site, then
published automatically to two other wikis, one for public and one for
artistes.

That's pretty neat!



I would suggest that you learn HTML and get on with it, using a
coder's text editor.

HTML is easy. It's complicated by two factors: people telling you it's
hard and the awful tutorial information out there - almost all of
which is wrong.

Use HTML 4.01 Strict, not 3.2, not XHTML, not HTML 4 Transitional, not
HTML 5.

I've been using XHTML 1 Strict


Read the two "Head First" books, "Head First Web Design" and "Head
First HTML with CSS & XHTML" Borrow these from the library, as
they're both an excellent one-off tutorial read, but not ongoing
references. Maybe get a copy of Lie & Bos' CSS book as a desk
reference.

You now know HTML. You now know enough HTML to handle semantic markup
for new embedded content, and enough HTML to do maintenance on an
existing site design. You don't know enough to design a site or to
design layout. You don't know any useful CSS either.

Read brainjar.com to learn how CSS positioning works. Particularly the
half-dozen ways to do side-by side content, tables (not always using
table) and how to do sidebars, columns or menus.

Lift your site design from bluerobot.com or glish.com who have some
useful two- or three-column designs, with menus.

I will look those up later, thanks very much for the pointers


Glue the bits together, then have your CSS expert skin the site for
its look and feel.

Use SSI to hold the complicated, fragile parts separate from the
community-edited content chunks.

If editors change things, that's enough. If editors _create_ things,
then you need more. Use either a blog engine or a wiki.

Andy Dingley wrote:
Here's an example of MediaWiki used as a CMS, then stretched to try
and make it publically navigable, without looking too much like a
wiki.
http://wyewaltz.org/wiki/Main_Page
This one is also run as a single CMS on the "management" site, then
published automatically to two other wikis, one for public and one for
artistes.

I did something similar with MoinMoin - another wiki engine. Here's what
MoinMoin normally looks like:
http://moinmo.in/

and here's my attempt:
http://www.meth.soc.ucam.org/

Content is almost entirely not done by me, but people with no HTML/etc
skills.

Hacking it around was less painful than I'd imagine it would be -
basically I have a custom theme that overloads lots of the editing
functionality so it doesn't do anything. For example I haven't a clue what
'Render as DocBook' does, and so no reason why even wiki editors should need
to use it. So when you login, the only editing links you get are Edit,
Info, Delete Page, Rename Page, Attachments and Recent Changes.
It's also linked into the university single-signon system so no messing
about with passwords, it's just a simple access list of user IDs.

Theo

On Aug 13, 5:28*pm, Theo Markettos
wrote:
I did something similar with MoinMoin - another wiki engine.

I've only used MoinMoin once -- or rather I was supposed to be using
it, but it was so ghastly I threw it away in favour of emacs and a
hammer.

newshound wrote:

[snip]

. Currently using Frontpage 2000 because I happened to have a copy, but it
is a bit clunky. Can't justify anything like Dreamweaver but don't mind
paying for a basic editor. Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware /
low cost editor suitable for XHTML? No Java, Flash, or any interactive stuff.

The SJ Namo editor used to be good for small projects. I haven't used it
for some time but I did like it a lot. Some similarities to Dreamwesver,
easier to use and came with a good graphics editing package in the bundle.

www.namo.com

Steve Firth wrote:

newshound wrote:

Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware / low cost editor

The SJ Namo editor used to be good for small projects.

So, they produce a web editor but are dense enough to put all the text
of their own website up as graphics, e.g.

http://www.namo.com/design/default/images/Product_detail_webeditor9_01.jpg

and they actually expect to people to part with money for this editor?

Andy Dingley wrote:
I've only used MoinMoin once -- or rather I was supposed to be using
it, but it was so ghastly I threw it away in favour of emacs and a
hammer.

It has pretty horrid UI, but underneath it's actually relatively sane.
Every revision of every wiki page is a file, it isn't plumbed into some vast
incomprehensible database. It's in Python, so easy to hack around. And
once you've disabled all the unfriendly stuff (and it's full of it - like
saying 'Immutable page' instead of 'You can't edit this page') it's
reasonably pleasant.

One difficulty is conventional 'shared hosting' packages tend not to
advertise python, while they all do PHP.

Theo

Andy Burns wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

newshound wrote:

Anyone recommend any freeware / shareware / low cost editor

The SJ Namo editor used to be good for small projects.

So, they produce a web editor but are dense enough to put all the text of
their own website up as graphics, e.g.

http://www.namo.com/design/default/images/Product_detail_webeditor9_01.jpg

and they actually expect to people to part with money for this editor?

Are you claiming that it's the editor that forces The designer to do that?
Not in my experience.

On Aug 14, 1:49*am, Theo Markettos
wrote:

It has pretty horrid UI, but underneath it's actually relatively sane.
Every revision of every wiki page is a file,

That's the trouble - I could re-code MoinMoin in no time, because it's
a dead simple and "elegant" implementation. As a thing for page
editors to use, it's fecking 'orrible.

I thought it was one page per file though, where each file was a delta-
ed version history?

On Aug 13, 9:43*pm, Andy Burns wrote:
So, they produce a web editor but are dense enough to put all the text
of their own website up as graphics, e.g.

That's the sort of Stupid that makes buying decisions _so_ easy!

Andy Burns wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

dense enough to put all the text of their own website up as graphics

Are you claiming that it's the editor that forces The designer to do that?
Not in my experience.

No, but if I was trying to demonstrate how good my editor was, I'd want
my website to have nice clean fast-loading html, not slow graphics that
are inaccessible to people like Brian.

Uh huh ... So the BMW website should be powered by a straight six engine
and smell faintly of leather? Do they claim that the site was developed to
show off their software?

It doesn't detract from the fact that it's a decent web design package and
that it can be downloaded for a free trial. If the OP doesn't like it he
can choose not to pay for it. Dismissing it out of hand for a crap decision
made by a web designer is odd.